Longitudinal trajectories of blood lipid levels in an ageing population sample of Russian Western-Siberian urban population.

This study investigated 12-year blood lipid trajectories and whether these trajectories are modified by smoking and lipid lowering treatment in older Russians. To do so, we analysed data on 9,218 Russian West-Siberian Caucasians aged 45-69 years at baseline participating in the international HAPIEE cohort study. Mixed-effect multilevel models were used to estimate individual level lipid trajectories across the baseline and two follow-up examinations (16,445 separate measurements over 12 years). In all age groups, we observed a reduction in serum total cholesterol (TC), LDL-C and non-HDL-C over time even after adjusting for sex, statin treatment, hypertension, diabetes, social factors and mortality (P<0.01). In contrast, serum triglyceride (TG) values increased over time in younger age groups, reached a plateau and decreased in older age groups (> 60 years at baseline). In smokers, TC, LDL-C, non-HDL-C and TG decreased less markedly than in non-smokers, while HDL-C decreased more rapidly while the LDL-C/HDL-C ratio increased. In subjects treated with lipid-lowering drugs, TC, LDL-C and non-HDL-C decreased more markedly and HDL-C less markedly than in untreated subjects while TG and LDL-C/HDL-C remained stable or increased in treatment naïve subjects. We conclude, that in this ageing population we observed marked changes in blood lipids over a 12 year follow up, with decreasing trajectories of TC, LDL-C and non-HDL-C and mixed trajectories of TG. The findings suggest that monitoring of age-related trajectories in blood lipids may improve prediction of CVD risk beyond single measurements.

Introduction

Plasma lipid values are important modifiable risk factors of cardiovascular diseases [1]. According to the long-term used approach in preventive cardiology plasma total cholesterol (TC) over 5.0 mmol/L, plasma low-density cholesterol (LDL-C) over 3.0 mmol/l, plasma triglycerides (TG) over 1.7 mmol/L and plasma high-density cholesterol (HDL-C) below 1.0 mmol/L in males and below 1.2 mmol/L in females were recommended as optimal values for predicting increased risk of atherosclerosis development and subsequent cardiovascular disease. However, these values need to be modified according to further risk categories based on sex, smoking status, age and blood pressure [2]. The recent ESC/EAS guidelines on dyslipidaemia, 2019 defines the goal value of LDL-C in patients at very high, high, moderate, and low CVD risk as below 1.4 mmol/l, 1.8 mmol/l, 2.6 mmol/l, and 3.0 mmol/l, respectively [3].

Levels of plasma lipids are influenced both by genetic and environmental factors. For example, triglycerides seem to be subject to greater genetic influence than total cholesterol, with physical activity exerting more of an effect on triglycerides than dietary habits or smoking status [4]. To complicate matters further, all of these factors interact with each other [5].

Ageing has a considerable impact on lifestyle and quality of life; this is a particularly evident in Russia where life expectancy has increased dramatically over recent decades [6]. The side effect of this positive trend is the general increase in the prevalence of impaired health status in terms of non-fatal health outcomes. Despite this dramatic improvement in life expectancy in the Russian population, only scant information is available on the prevalence of dyslipidaemia, and reliable longitudinal analyses of individual-level changes in plasma lipids have yet to be performed.

Relatively few publications have explored long-term trajectories of plasma lipids [7-9], focusing primarily on Western European populations. Intriguingly, one recent study, albeit focusing on another ethnic group, suggested that different types of lipid trajectories in young and middle-aged subjects are associated with different risks of incident cardiovascular disease [10]. Consistent with this finding, differential risks of CVD were recently reported between clusters of individuals with different underlying lipid trajectories during 35-year follow-up in Framingham Offspring cohort [11].

The overall aim of our study was to track changes in blood lipid concentrations (mainly cholesterol in different fractions and triglycerides) associated with age in a Russian West-Siberian Caucasian (ethnic Russian) population. The cohort, based in Novosibirsk, the third-largest city in Russia, conducted repeated lipid examinations over a 12-year period. The secondary aim of the study was to determine whether and to what degree these changes would be influenced by smoking and lipid lowering treatment.

Materials and methods

Subjects

Participants in the Russian arm of the Health, Alcohol and Psychosocial Factors in Eastern Europe (HAPIEE) study were included in the analysis. The study sample comprised of men and women aged 45–69 at baseline living in two districts (Oktyabr’skiy and Kirovskiy) of the West-Siberian city of Novosibirsk, randomly samples from the electoral list stratified by 5-year age group and sex (response rate 61%). Details of the study protocol have been described elsewhere [12]; baseline characteristics of the subjects from the Russian part of the study have also been published previously [13, 14].

Anthropometric parameters, alcohol consumption, smoking status, history of dyslipidaemia and lipid-lowering treatment, history of cardiovascular and other chronic diseases, and socio-demographic parameters were assessed by trained nurses using a standardised protocol and questionnaire [12, 15]. Blood samples were drawn at fasting condition (at least 8 hours). Serum was stored at -80°C and analyses for lipids were conducted within one month period after samples collection. After the baseline examination in 2003–2005 (wave 1), participants were followed up by two subsequent waves in 2006–2008 (wave 2) and 2015–2017 (wave 3).

After excluding a minority of subjects aged 70 years or older at baseline (N = 111) from the analysis, the final study group consisted of 9,218 subjects (16,445 measurements/observations).

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and was approved by the ethics committee of the Research Institute of Internal and Preventive Medicine—Branch of the Institute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences (protocol № 1 from 14.mar.2002). Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Blood lipid analysis

Blood lipid concentrations across three waves were measured in Laboratory of Biochemistry, Institute of Internal and Preventive Medicine. Serum lipid values were analysed enzymatically using kits from Thermo Fisher Scientific (total cholesterol–Cat. No. 981812; HDL-cholesterol–Cat. No. 981823; triglycerides–Cat. No. 981301; LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) direct measurement–Cat. No. 981656; HDL/LDL calibrator–Cat. No. 981657, and LIPOTROL control–Cat. No. 981653) on a KoneLab 30i autoanalyser (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., USA).

For subjects with serum TG values below 4.5 mmol/L, LDL-C values were calculated using the Friedewald formula [16]. For few subjects with TG values above 4.5 mmol/L, LDL-C values were measured using a direct enzymatic method. Non-HDL-C values were calculated using the equation: Non-HDL-C = TC–HDL-C.

Internal quality control was applied daily on a permanent basis by a biochemical laboratory, with external quality control routinely provided by a Moscow Federal standardisation centre on an annual basis. Laboratory was standardised for lipid measurements under the framework of the HAPIEE study, the Centres for Disease Control (Atlanta, USA) and the Institute of Clinical and Experimental Medicine (Prague, Czech Republic).

Statistical analysis

In order to model trajectories of blood lipid values across three measurement waves over an average 12-year follow-up period, multilevel modelling (MLM) techniques were used. Specific measurement occasions at baseline, wave 2 and wave 3 were considered level 1 variables nested within study participants (level 2 variables). Both the intercept and slope were fitted as random effects, allowing individual differences in lipid concentrations at baseline and rate of change.

In order to distinguish between ageing and period/cohort effects, we separately modelled TC, LDL-C, HDL-C, TG as well as computed non-HDL-C and LDL-C/HDL-C trajectories over the 12-year follow-up period by 5-year birth cohorts. Estimates were unadjusted in model 1, adjusted for sex and lipid-lowering treatment (assessed in all three data collection waves) in model 2, and further adjusted for smoking (never-, ex-, current-smoker), BMI, alcohol consumption (non-drinkers, moderate drinkers, heavy drinkers: defined as >30 g/day for men and >15 g/day for women), education (primary, secondary, vocational, university), marital status (single, married/co-habiting), and CVD/all-cause mortality (identified by linkage with mortality-registry) in model 3. Slopes were calculated separately for male and female participants.

For sensitivity analysis, first, we recalculated trajectories only among subjects with available measurements of lipids across all three waves (N = 2,009). Second, we recalculated trajectories after exclusion of subjects who dropped out after baseline wave 1 and had no evidence of fatal outcome during follow-up period (N = 7,606).

All statistical analysis was carried out using MLwiN v3.01 software and accessed through Stata v13.1 by inputting the ‘runmlwin’ command [17]. P-values less than 0.05 were considered significant (calculated for trend).

Results

Descriptive characteristics of the sample

The general characteristics of the subjects evaluated across all three examinations are summarised in Table 1. Data on TC, LDL-C, HDL-C and TG were obtained from 9,218 participants at baseline, 3,442 subjects at wave 2 and 3,785 persons at wave 3, totalling 16,445 individual-level examinations. A total of 2,009 individuals were measured in all three waves (6,027 individual examinations). Waves 2 and 3 were conducted on average 3.2 and 12.3 years, respectively, after the baseline examination; the age range of participants increased from 45–69 years at baseline to 56–83 years at wave 3; however, the proportion of participants receiving lipid-lowering treatment (mostly statins) over time increased substantially between wave 1 and wave 3 from 23.8% to 47.1% among those aware of dyslipidemia.

Table 1

Descriptive characteristics of studied samples through 3 waves of examinations.

Characteristics	Wave 1 (2002–2005) n = 9,218		Wave 2 (2006–2008) n = 3,379		Wave 3 (2015–2017) n = 3,785
	men	women	men	women	men	Women
Observed, n	4199	5019	1361	2018	1451	2334
Time since W1, years	0.0	0.0	2.95	3.33	12.2	12.4
Age, years	58.2 (6.94)	57.9 (7.04)	60.8 (6.91)	61.0 (6.85)	68.9 (6.89)	69.4 (6.80)
TC, mmol/l	6.01 (1.19)	6.52 (1.30)	5.55 (0.99)	6.05 (1.09)	5.18 (1.13)	5.65 (1.18)
LDL-C, mmol/l	3.84 (1.06)	4.24 (1.17)	3.52 (0.88)	3.89 (0.99)	3.29 (0.99)	3.58 (1.08)
HDL-C, mmol/l	1.50 (0.38)	1.56 (0.35)	1.42 (0.35)	1.51 (0.33)	1.24 (0.38)	1.38 (0.38)
TG, mmol/l	1.28 (0.97–1.74)	1.38 (1.06–1.85)	1.20 (0.92–1.58)	1.27 (0.98–1.68)	1.21 (0.86–1.74)	1.30 (0.97–1.80)
SBP, mmHg	144.2 (23.5)	144.5 (26.1)	145.2 (23.3)	146.8 (25.3)	146.6 (20.5)	144.8 (21.6)
DBP, mmHg	90.8 (13.4)	90.5 (13.5)	99.6 (13.0)	90.3 (13.4)	85.8 (11.8)	82.2 (10.8)
BMI, kg/m 2	26.6 (4.44)	30.2 (5.72)	27.0 (4.45)	30.3 (5.48)	27.8 (4.61)	30.5 (5.72)
LLT, n (%) *	130/420 (31.0)	208/999 (20.8)	77/366 (21.0)	188/1013 (18.6)	161/348 (46.3)	573/1211 (47.3)
Smoking, n (%)
Non smokers	1072 (25.5)	4275 (85.2)	381 (28.0)	1735 (86.0)	438 (30.2)	2041 (87.4)
Ex-smokers	1036 (24.7)	222 (4.4)	409 (30.1)	105 (5.2)	393 (27.1)	100 (4.3)
Regular smokers	2091 (49.8)	522 (10.4)	571 (42.0)	178 (8.6)	620 (42.7)	193 (8.3)
Alcohol intake, n (%)
Non drinkers	829 (19.8)	1822 (36.4)	243 (17.9)	624 (30.9)	255 (17.67)	705 (30.2)
Moderate drinkers	2954 (70.5)	3154 (62.9)	979 (72.0)	1380 (68.4)	1046 (72.2)	1612 (69.1)
Heavy drinkers	409 (9.8)	36 (0.7)	137 (10.1)	12 (0.6)	148 (10.2)	15 (0.6)
Education, n (%)
Primary	470 (11.2)	474 (9.4)	64 (4.7)	104 (5.2)	82 (5.7)	151 (6.5)
Secondary	917 (21.6)	1534 (30.6)	275 (20.2)	587 (29.1)	323 (22.3)	705 (30.2)
Vocational	1473 (35.1)	1685 (33.6)	484 (35.6)	720 (35.7)	465 (32.0)	754 (32.3)
University	1339 (31.9)	1326 (26.4)	538 (39.6)	607 (30.1)	581 (40.0)	724 (31.0)
Marital status, n (%)
Single	507 (12.1)	2031 (40.5)	139 (10.2)	764 (37.9)	132 (9.1)	855 (36.6)
Married /cohabiting	3692 (87.9)	2988 (59.5)	1222 (89.8)	1254 (62.1)	1319 (90.9)	1479 (63.4)
History of CVD, n (%)	987 (23.5)	1001 (19.9)	309 (22.7)	410 (19.9)	266 (18.3)	393 (16.8)
History of chronic diseases, n (%)	1113 (26.5)	1327 (26.4)	361 (25.8)	513 (25.4)	302 (20.8)	519 (22.2)
CVD death during follow-up -, n (%)	374 (8.9)	159 (3.3)	69 (5.4)	24 (1.2)	-	-
All causes death during follow-up **, n (%)	839 (20.0)	365 (7.3)	141 (10.4)	57 (2.8)	-	-

Values are mean (sd) or n (%)

* LLT—lipid lowering treatment among those with history of dyslipidemia

** Mortality follow-up limited to 2011.

Overall lipid trajectories

Notable changes in serum lipids were observed over the follow-up period. In simple cross-sectional analysis by wave of measurement, we observed a moderate decrease in mean TC, LDL-C and HDL-C values between baseline and both follow-up phases for the entire population in both men and women. In contrast, mean TG values remained similar across all three examinations (Table 1).

Table 2 and Fig 1 show the unadjusted individual-level trajectories of blood lipids during follow up for all 5-year age groups. For in TC and LDL-C, the slopes of decline in concentrations were more pronounced in older cohorts, and this pattern was consistent with estimates adjusted for sex and lipid lowering treatment (Table 3) and with multivariable adjusted models (Table 4).

Table 2

Baseline total cholesterol, LDL-C, HDL-C and triglycerides (intercept) and change in LDL-C, HDL-C and triglycerides per year (slope) in the 5-yr cohorts (unadjusted).

		Age range in W1	TC			LDL-C
			coeff.	SE	p-value	coeff.	SE	p-value
Intercept	Estimate (mmol/l)	45–49 (ref)	5.94	0.031	<0.001	3.76	0.028	<0.001
	Difference compared to reference group	50–54	0.217	0.042	<0.001	0.181	0.038	<0.001
		55–59	0.344	0.041	<0.001	0.284	0.037	<0.001
		60–64	0.492	0.043	<0.001	0.439	0.038	<0.001
		65–69	0.421	0.041	<0.001	0.379	0.037	<0.001
Slope	Estimate (mmol/l/year)	45–49 (ref)	-0.026	0.003	<0.001	-0.014	0.003	<0.001
	Difference compared to reference group	50–54	-0.025	0.005	<0.001	-0.021	0.004	<0.001
		55–59	-0.047	0.005	0.001	-0.041	0.004	<0.001
		60–64	-0.065	0.005	<0.001	-0.053	0.004	<0.001
		65–69	-0.069	0.006	<0.001	-0.059	0.005	<0.001
				HDL-C			TG
			coeff.	SE	p-value	coeff.	SE	p-value
Intercept	Estimate (mmol/l)	45–49 (ref)	1.54	0.010	<0.001	1.40	0.020	<0.001
	Difference compared to reference group	50–54	-0.004	0.012	0.713	0.089	0.027	0.001
		55–59	-0.011	0.012	0.339	0.150	0.027	<0.001
		60–64	-0.017	0.012	0.173	0.152	0.027	<0.001
		65–69	-0.029	0.012	0.013	0.161	0.026	<0.001
Slope	Estimate (mmol/l/year)	45–49 (ref)	-0.019	0.001	<0.001	0.012	0.002	<0.001
	Difference compared to reference group	50–54	-0.002	0.002	0.178	-0.006	0.003	0.053
		55–59	0.001	0.002	0.761	-0.015	0.003	<0.001
		60–64	0.002	0.002	0.368	-0.028	0.003	<0.001
		65–69	0.003	0.002	0.101	-0.030	0.003	<0.001

Fig 1

Trajectories of lipids in men and women 5-yr cohorts over the 12 years of follow up.

Table 3

Baseline total cholesterol, LDL-C, HDL-C and triglycerides (intercept) and change in LDL-C, HDL-C and triglycerides per year (slope) in the 5-yr cohorts (adjusted*).

		Age range in W1	TC			LDL-C
			coeff.	SE	p-value	coeff.	SE	p-value
Intercept	Estimate (mmol/l)	45–49 (ref)	5.64	0.033	<0.001	3.54	0.030	<0.001
	Difference compared to reference group	50–54	0.239	0.041	<0.001	0.197	0.037	<0.001
		55–59	0.362	0.040	<0.001	0.298	0.036	<0.001
		60–64	0.514	0.042	<0.001	0.456	0.037	<0.001
		65–69	0.447	0.040	<0.001	0.397	0.036	<0.001
Slope	Estimate (mmol/l/year)	45–49 (ref)	-0.024	0.004	<0.001	-0.012	0.004	0.020
	Difference compared to reference group	50–54	-0.026	0.005	<0.001	-0.021	0.004	<0.001
		55–59	-0.047	0.005	0.001	-0.041	0.004	<0.001
		60–64	-0.066	0.005	<0.001	-0.054	0.004	<0.001
		65–69	-0.071	0.005	<0.001	-0.060	0.004	<0.001
		Age range in W1	HDL-C			TG
			coeff.	SE	p-value	coeff.	SE	p-value
Intercept	Estimate (mmol/l)	45–49 (ref)	1.50	1.34	1.34	1.34	0.030	<0.001
	Difference compared to reference group	50–54	-0.011	0.091	0.091	0.091	0.037	<0.001
		55–59	-0.007	0.150	0.150	0.150	0.036	<0.001
		60–64	-0.012	0.154	0.154	0.154	0.037	<0.001
		65–69	-0.025	0.163	0.163	0.163	0.036	<0.001
Slope	Estimate (mmol/l/year)	45–49 (ref)	-0.020	0.013	0.013	0.013	0.004	0.020
	Difference compared to reference group	50–54	-0.002	-0.006	-0.006	-0.006	0.004	<0.001
		55–59	0.001	-0.015	-0.015	-0.015	0.004	<0.001
		60–64	0.002	-0.028	-0.028	-0.028	0.004	<0.001
		65–69	0.003	-0.031	-0.031	-0.031	0.004	<0.001

*Adjusted by sex and lipid-lowering treatment.

Table 4

Baseline total cholesterol, LDL-C, HDL-C and triglycerides (intercept) and change in LDL-C, HDL-C and triglycerides per year (slope) in the 5-yr cohorts (* multivariable adjusted).

		Age range in W1	TC			LDL-C
			coeff.	SE	p-value	coeff.	SE	p-value
Intercept	Estimate (mmol/l)	45–49 (ref)	5.35	0.058	<0.001	3.37	0.052	<0.001
	Difference compared to reference group	50–54	0.228	0.043	<0.001	0.190	0.038	<0.001
		55–59	0.354	0.042	<0.001	0.284	0.038	<0.001
		60–64	0.520	0.045	<0.001	0.445	0.040	<0.001
		65–69	0.482	0.045	<0.001	0.420	0.040	<0.001
Slope	Estimate (mmol/l/year)	45–49 (ref)	-0.027	0.003	<0.001	-0.011	0.003	0.002
	Difference compared to reference group	50–54	-0.025	0.005	<0.001	-0.021	0.004	<0.001
		55–59	-0.045	0.005	<0.001	-0.039	0.004	<0.001
		60–64	-0.064	0.005	<0.001	-0.052	0.004	<0.001
		65–69	-0.068	0.007	<0.001	-0.057	0.005	<0.001
		Age range in W1	HDL-C			TG
			coeff.	SE	p-value	coeff.	SE	p-value
Intercept	Estimate (mmol/l)	45–49 (ref)	1.47	1.11	1.11	1.11	0.052	<0.001
	Difference compared to reference group	50–54	0.020	0.059	0.059	0.059	0.038	<0.001
		55–59	0.021	0.098	0.098	0.098	0.038	<0.001
		60–64	0.014	0.131	0.131	0.131	0.040	<0.001
		65–69	0.017	0.094	0.094	0.094	0.040	<0.001
Slope	Estimate (mmol/l/year)	45–49 (ref)	-0.018	0.008	0.008	0.008	0.003	0.002
	Difference compared to reference group	50–54	-0.002	-0.005	-0.005	-0.005	0.004	<0.001
		55–59	-0.001	-0.011	-0.011	-0.011	0.004	<0.001
		60–64	-0.000	-0.024	-0.024	-0.024	0.004	<0.001
		65–69	0.001	-0.023	-0.023	-0.023	0.005	<0.001

*Adjusted by sex, lipid-lowering treatment, smoking, BMI, alcohol intake, education, marital status, CVD mortality, all-cause mortality.

Changes in HDL-C over time were less pronounced compared to TC and LDL-C and the decline in HDL-C concentrations was similar in all 5-year groups (Tables 2–4; Fig 1), In contrast, TG values increased over the follow up in the younger cohort and decreased in the cohort of subjects over 60 years of age (Tables 2–4; Fig 1). For more details about the lipid trajectories in 5-years sub-group, see S1–S6 Figs.

As a sensitivity analysis, we repeated our assessment only in subjects whose serum lipids were obtained across all 3 waves (‘complete cases’, N = 2,009). The direction and slope of the trajectories virtually did not change (data are shown in S1 and S2 Tables).

Additionally, we repeated calculations in a subsample of 7,606 participants after exclusion of subjects who dropped out after baseline examination and did not die during follow-up. The direction and slope of the trajectories were similar to the patterns in the total sample (data are shown in S3 and S4 Tables).

Effects of smoking status

Fig 2 shows the influence of smoking status on trajectories (ever- vs. never-smokers, adjusted for sex, lipid-lowering medication, and centred age at 58 years). At baseline and throughout the follow-up period, TC values remained comparable, exhibiting a similar decreasing slope in ever-smokers and never-smokers. Concentrations of LDL-C and non-HDL-C in smokers were lower at baseline and decreased less markedly than in non-smokers; in contrast, levels of HDL-C were higher among smokers at baseline but decreased more markedly. At baseline and throughout follow-up, TG was higher in smokers; trajectories were divergent, remaining relatively stable in smokers while decreasing in never-smokers. LDL-C/HDL-C ratios were lower at baseline in smokers; trajectories were in opposition, increasing in ever-smokers and remained stable in never-smokers. These contrasting TG and LDL-C/HDL-C trajectories seem to have been further influenced by the age-cohort effect, with a more pronounced increase among smokers observed in subjects under 60 years of age and a decrease in those over 60 years of age (more details summarised within the S7–S12 Figs).

Fig 2

Trajectories of lipids in men and women 5-yr cohorts over the 12 years of follow up by smoking.

Effects of lipid-lowering therapy

Fig 3 and S13 Fig show the differences in trajectories between subjects treated with lipid-lowering drugs and treatment-naïve subjects, adjusted for sex and centred age (58 years). As expected, in subjects treated with lipid-lowering drugs, TC baseline values were lower; however, LDL-C, non-HDL-C and HDL-C values were similar, while TG values and LDL-C/HDL-C ratios were higher than in treatment-naïve subjects. The declines in all four main lipid categories over time (slope) in subjects given medication were much more pronounced than in untreated persons. For TG and LDL-C/HDL-C, trajectories were in opposite directions, decreasing in lipid-lowering-treated individuals and remaining stable or increasing in treatment-naïve subjects. More detailed comparison between the treated and untreated subjects within the different age subgroups are summarised within the S13–S18 Figs.

Fig 3

Trajectories of lipids in men and women 5-yr cohorts over the 12 years of follow up by lipid lowering treatment.

Discussion

In this Russian population-based urban cohort aged 45–69 years old at baseline, we observed a reduction with aging in plasma levels of total, LDL- and HDL- cholesterol at individual level over 12 year follow up in all age groups. This decrease was more pronounced in subjects using cholesterol lowering medication and was more distinct for total cholesterol than to LDL-C. In contrast, plasma triglyceride levels increased with advancing age, with peak values observed in subjects in the age category of 55–59 years. Across all three examinations, the mean plasma lipid values were higher (lower in the case of HDL-cholesterol) than the values recommended by European cardiology societies [3]. As summarised previously, plasma concentrations of total and LDL-C in this population were 6.3 and 4.1 mmol/L, respectively [14].

This study has several limitations. First, we cannot exclude the possibility of differential cohort attrition due to increased CVD mortality risk in subjects with dyslipidaemia and/or due to increased non-CVD mortality among those with extreme lipids decline. However, we adjusted the estimates for both total and CVD mortality. Importantly, our results were similar in full initial sample and two sensitivity analyses in ‘complete case’ sample (participants of all three waves) and after excluding persons who dropped out since baseline. This fact suggests that attrition did not affect the observed trajectories substantially.

Second, the baseline response rate was moderate (61%), which can affect the mean lipid levels, as non-participants in epidemiological studies usually have healthier risk factor profile. In addition, the study did not include young adults who may have otherwise exhibited different lipid trajectories.

On the other hand, results were similar (concerning the direction and slope of the trajectories) when we repeated our assessment only in subjects whose serum lipids were known across all 3 waves.

We cannot fully exclude the impact of a range of potential confounding factors. However, we have adjusted the final models for the most common confounders (sex, age, lipid-lowering treatment, smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, education, marital status, CVD/all-cause mortality); and also have stratified analysis by sex and by 5-year age groups. Few additional models were calculated controlling the lipid curves for basal fruits or vegetables intake (by tertiles) with centered value of total energy intake (10.6 MJ/day), and for leisure time physical activity (3 categories) (data not shown). These additional adjustments did not substantially change the trajectories direction. The specific consideration of nutrition or physical activity effect on lipid changes might be a subject of separate analysis (taking into account restrictions in data available) and it is not in the scope of present paper. Also we have not information on specific medications (except of class), but it is unlikely that separate drugs might affect the average lipid level beyond the general effect of lipid-lowering treatment.

Finally, this study only included participants from one large city, and these results may not be generalisable to the whole country. However, the trends of risk factors in Novosibirsk and rates of CVD mortality in the region are close to those seen the Russian Federation across the last 30 years (Rosstat), so Novosibirsk can be seen as a useful case study mirroring at some extent the national pattern.

On the other hand, our study has also several important strengths. A single measurement of CVD risk factors is not sufficiently precise for estimating life-long disease risk [18, 19]. Baseline measurement of blood lipids as a CVD risk factor is prone to variations associated with factors such as age, lifestyle changes (mainly physical activity and dietary habits) and seasonal variability; e.g. in the case of total and LDL-C, fluctuations of more than 1 mmol/L between summer and winter seasons have been reported [20]. Thus, single measurements can be misleading, resulting in the misclassification of subjects into at-risk groups. Alternative models are now being used to improve risk estimation [21], such as variable categorisation of linear modelling. The analysis of trajectories from more than two individual measurements seems to offer more precise estimates for risk prediction [21, 22]. Supportive evidence is provided by recent Mendelian randomisation studies of lifetime risk of CVD [23, 24]. In UK Biobank study, Ference et al., using score of genetic variants associated with lower LDL-C levels as instrument of randomization, reported strong association between lifelong genetic exposure to lower levels of LDL-C and lower cardiovascular risk [23]. Swedisch study [24] than suggest, that LDL-C is is related with myocardial infarction, but not with stroke or heart failure.

Importantly, this large cohort study models long-term trajectories of lipids in correlation with advancing age. To the best of our knowledge, no similar study has focused on lipid trajectories within the Russian population (a group on which there is a significant lack of epidemiological data) or anywhere in Central or Eastern Europe. Thus, our study goes some way to redressing this deficit in knowledge of plasma lipids in this large region. In addition to measuring traditional lipids, we also examined non-HDL-C, currently defined as the most relevant atherogenic lipid marker [25].

Together with smoking, diabetes, hypertension and obesity, plasma lipid values (especially total and LDL-cholesterol values) have long been considered as a key modifiable risk factor for atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease. As observed in the WHO MONICA and post-MONICA studies, plasma lipid values have declined substantially over recent decades due to the wide use of statins and the adoption of positive lifestyle changes [26, 27]. In turn, this trend has led to changes in cardiovascular disease and mortality prediction [28-31].

The significant decline in plasma cholesterol values across age groups is consistent with the smaller effect of plasma cholesterol on CVD risk at older ages compared to younger groups. The reasons for the decline in levels of major lipids with age in the Russian population are not easily explained. As mentioned above, the decline appears to be largely treatment-independent. Lifestyle data on dietary habits and physical activity may provide some clues. For instance, the Russian diet is typically higher in energy and lower in vegetable and fruit intake compared to the Western European diet [32, 33], while physical activity in the Russian population is relatively comparable to both Western and Eastern European populations [Malyutina et al., unpublished data]. Unfortunately, available data about dietary habits and/or general physical activities of examined subjects were not known in sufficient details to perform adequate analyses of effects.

While cross-sectional decline in lipids with age in elderly has been widely reported in the literature [6-8], analyses of long-term individual-level trajectories charting the development of lipid parameters remain scarce. One of the first analyses was reported in the Framingham Heart Study [34]. Similar trajectories have been reported by Swiger et al. [35], who describe an age-related decline in LDL-C in subjects over 60 years of age. Our results are in agreement with these studies. According to the findings of National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys [36], age-related decline may contribute to the decreased cholesterol levels seen in the population over recent decades.

The individual-level decline in blood lipid values in older subjects observed in our longitudinal study reflects similar trends documented in cross-sectional studies [36, 37]. Our findings are consistent with the ARIC Study, which followed up a sample population comprising 9,328 subjects of European ancestry over 9 years. The authors observed an overall decrease in TC and LDL-C levels, a relative stabilisation in HDL-C levels, and a consistent rise in plasma TG values [8]. Similar patterns were very recently reported in 35-year follow-up of Framingham Offspring participants using the group modelling technique [11].

In contrast to TC and LDL-C, trajectories of serum TG levels in our cohorts varied substantially between age groups. Generally, we observed an increase in serum TG values in younger age groups, a plateau in the 55-59-years age category, followed by a decline in subjects over 60 years of age. This is consistent with the recent suggestions that serum TG and TG-rich remnant particles and non-HDL-C might be more powerful for predicting CVD and total mortality than TC or LDL-C [37]. Based on our previous observations of another geographically identical population (the Novosibirsk MONICA cohort), high TG values significantly increased the 10-year risk of CVD outcomes in men and, especially, women [38].

We have observed an effect of smoking status on lipid trajectories. While TC values were similar in smokers and never smokers, with both groups showing similar decreasing slopes, HDL-C was higher at baseline among smokers but decreased faster, so that at the end of the follow up HDL-C became higher among never-smokers. TG values where higher in ever-smokers in comparison with never-smokers, and the observed declining trajectory was steeper in never-smokers.

There were some differences between men and women in lipid trajectories. In general, the trajectories in males were steeper than in females. Revealingly, in the youngest age category, the trajectories of LDL-C/HDL-C ratios were significantly higher in males than in females, but no differences between males and females were observed for the highest age category.

An important finding of this study is the parallel decline of serum total and LDL-C in both treatment-naïve and statin-treated subjects. Although the declining slope was, as expected, slightly steeper in treated subjects, it does not seem that the decline in total and LDL cholesterol in the whole population can be attributed exclusively to lipid-lowering drugs. The use of statins, the major lipid–lowering drug group, increased from 17.9% to 19% in entire population (from 23.8% to 47.1% among those aware of dyslipidaemia). Interestingly, there were no subjects on ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors, as on the most powerful lipid lowering drug known so far, included. The treatment with other lipid-lowering drugs has been negligible (around 1%).

The steeper decline trajectories among subjects treated with lipid lowering drugs compared to those not treated in our sample are consistent with the patterns recently shown by Duncan et al. [10] in Framingham Offspring Study. In the groups composed from individuals with initially elevated level of TC, LDL-C and non-HDL-C which were decreasing with age, the proportion of lipid lowering treatment was the highest.

Conclusions

In this study in older Russians using the multilevel modelling of longitudinal lipid trajectories, we observed substantial declines in total cholesterol and LDL-C over time and with age. The pattern of declining concentrations does not seem to be attributable solely to lipid-lowering treatment and/or smoking behaviour. On the whole, elderly people seems to be at lower risk of suffering from dyslipidaemia, and gender differences become smaller with increasing age. Longitudinal trajectories of blood lipids from middle to the elderly age may improve prediction of CVD risk beyond using single occasion measurements and may improve the quantification of lifetime exposure to blood lipid concentrations.

Complete cases of all three waves (N = 2009).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Baseline total cholesterol, LDL-C, HDL-C and triglycerides (intercept) and change in LDL-C, HDL-C and triglycerides per year (slope) in the 5-yr cohorts. Adjusted by sex, lipid-lowering treatment, smoking, BMI, alcohol, education, marital status, CVD mortality, all causes mortality.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Selected sample after exclusion of subjects dropped out after baseline examination and did not die during follow-up (N = 7,606).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Selected sample after exclusion of dropped out after baseline examination and did not die during follow-up (N = 7,606).

Baseline total cholesterol, LDL-C, HDL-C and triglycerides (intercept) and change in LDL-C, HDL-C and triglycerides per year (slope) in the 5-yr cohorts. Adjusted by sex, lipid-lowering treatment, smoking, BMI, alcohol, education, marital status, CVD mortality, all causes mortalit.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

TC trajectories in men and women over the 12 years of follow up.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

LDL-C trajectories in men and women over the 12 years of follow up.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

HDL-C trajectories in men and women over the 12 years of follow up.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

TG trajectories in men and women over the 12 years of follow up.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Non HDL-C trajectories in men and women over the 12 years of follow up.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Ratio LDL/HDL trajectories in men and women over the 12 years of follow up.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

TC trajectories in men and women over the 12 years of follow up by smoking.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

LDL-C trajectories in men and women over the 12 years of follow up by smoking.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

HDL-C trajectories in men and women over the 12 years of follow up by smoking.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

TG trajectories in men and women over the 12 years of follow up by smoking.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

NonHDL-C trajectories in men and women over the 12 years of follow up by smoking.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Ratio LDL/HDL trajectories in men and women over the 12 years of follow up by smoking.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

TC trajectories in men and women over the 12 years of follow up by lipid lowering treatment.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

LDL-C trajectories in men and women over the 12 years of follow up by lipid lowering treatment.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

HDL-C trajectories in men and women over the 12 years of follow up by lipid lowering treatment.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

TG trajectories in men and women over the 12 years of follow up by lipid lowering treatment.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

nonHDL-C trajectories in men and women over the 12 years of follow up by lipid lowering treatment.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Ratio LDL/HDL trajectories in men and women over the 12 years of follow up by lipid lowering treatment.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

23 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-21255

Longitudinal trajectories of blood lipid levels in an ageing population sample of Russian Western-Siberian urban population

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hubacek,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please consider all the reviewer's comments and address properly all of them.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 07 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Paolo Magni

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

“This study was supported by the Russian Scientific Foundation (20-15-00371,14-45-00030) and the Russian Academy of Science, State target (АААА-А17-117112850280-2); the HAPIEE study was funded by the Welcome Trust (WT064947, WT081081), the US National Institute of Aging (1RO1AG23522) and the MacArthur Foundation Initiative on Social Upheaval and Health; JAH is supported by the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic under the Conceptual Development of Research Organisations project (Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine – IKEM, IN 00023001). MVH works in a unit that receives funding from the UK Medical Research Council and is supported by a British Heart Foundation Intermediate Clinical Research Fellowship (FS/18/23/33512) and the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.”

Funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This study was supported by the Russian Scientific Foundation (20-15-00371,14-45-00030) and the Russian Academy of Science, State target (АААА-А17-117112850280-2); the HAPIEE study was funded by the Welcome Trust (WT064947, WT081081), the US National Institute of Aging (1RO1AG23522) and the MacArthur Foundation Initiative on Social Upheaval and Health; JAH is supported by the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic under the Conceptual Development of Research Organisations project (Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine – IKEM, IN 00023001). MVH works in a unit that receives funding from the UK Medical Research Council and is supported by a British Heart Foundation Intermediate Clinical Research Fellowship (FS/18/23/33512) and the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Sponsors play no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. We note that you have referenced (Malyutina et al.,) which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (ie “Malyutina et al., unpublished data”) as detailed online in our guide for authors

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style

6. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript is written in clear English. For achieving the aim of the study (evaluation of changes in blood lipid concentrations associated with age in a Russian West-Siberian Caucasian population) adequate statistical methods for calculations and sample size are used. The idea of the manuscript is structured and logical based on the purpose declared. However, it could be considered as a one part of a project aiming to reclassify current cardiovascular risk scores as

- it does not take into account a range of other confounding factors (diet particularities, other medications that may affect lipid blood levels, physical activity etc) that may affect the curve of the blood lipid changes,

- the mendelian randomization data about the life-time cardiovascular risk impact has to be taken into account,

- the results presented in the manuscript have to be supported by the data about the logic association of the blood lipid changes curve in different age groups with the prevalence of cardiovascular events in these groups.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

3 Nov 2021

Comments to the Author

1/ - it does not take into account a range of other confounding factors (diet particularities, other medications that may affect lipid blood levels, physical activity etc) that may affect the curve of the blood lipid changes

RE: We agree that in addition to lipid lowering treatment, age, sex and smoking, there are other factors that could influence plasma lipid levels in study participants. Concerning the lipid lowering treatment, as mentioned in the discussion, our subjects were almost exclusively treated by statins (no subjects on PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe were included; see now added information at lines 460 - 463). In terms of other medications – unfortunately in the HAPIEE study we have no data available on specific medication of participants apart from lipid-lowering drugs, antihypertensive drugs or sugar lowering drugs (on dosage or regiment of intake). We have described this limitation of our data in the Discussion section of the revised manuscript.

In additional sensitivity analyses, we have further adjusted the models for fruit or vegetables intakes (by tertiles); total energy intake (centered at 10.6 MJ/day); and leisure time physical activity (less than 3 MET-hours/day; 3-10 MET hours/day; more than 10 MET hours/day). These adjustments did not materially change the results, including the direction of trajectories. We have added the description of additional adjustments to the revised paper (lines 353 - 366). Unfortunately, available data about dietary habits and/or general physical activities of examined subjects were not known in sufficient details at all three examinations to perform adequate analyses of effects. This is now listed between the study weaknesses (lines 414-416).

2/ - the mendelian randomization data about the life-time cardiovascular risk impact has to be taken into account

RE: Thank you for this comment raising the issue of Mendelian randomisation that we have now incorporated to the Discussion. We agree that Mendelian randomisation data could be of interest for the estimation of life exposure to the distinct risk factors and their life-time impact on CVD risk. However, such analysis has not been performed in our study, mainly because of unavailable genotyping data due to the shortage of funding, and this approach is out of the scope of present paper.

Nevertheless, it is merit to refer the recent papers which used the randomization by genetic score based on polymorphisms associated with LDL-C (known from GWAS), and reported the association between life-long LDL-C lowering and reduced CVD risk [Ference et al., 2019; Lind et al., 2021, ref list under 23 and 24]. In revised manuscript we have widened Discussion taking into account these findings (lines 384 - 389).

3/ - the results presented in the manuscript have to be supported by the data about the logic association of the blood lipid changes curve in different age groups with the prevalence of cardiovascular events in these groups.

RE: Thank you for this comment. In our analysis, we have taken into account CVD of participants by adjusting for CVD mortality rather than prevalence.

As mentioned in the Methods (lines – 161 - 162), Results (Table 4 and lines 242 - 247) and Discussion (lines – 337 - 345) sections, both total and cardiovascular mortality has been taken into account during the calculations – we have adjusted our results on these parameters. Two sensitivity analyses also suggest that the effect of CVD mortality on lipid trajectories is small and did not affect the observed trajectories substantially (see lines 340 - 345). Unadjusted and fully adjusted results are presented in Tables 2 and 4. In Tables 2, 3, 4 and wide list of supplementary figures, data are also presented for different age groups (as suggested by reviewer).

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

5 Nov 2021

Longitudinal trajectories of blood lipid levels in an ageing population sample of Russian Western-Siberian urban population

PONE-D-21-21255R1

Dear Dr. Hubacek,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Paolo Magni

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

17 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-21255R1

Longitudinal trajectories of blood lipid levels in an ageing population sample of Russian Western-Siberian urban population

Dear Dr. Hubacek:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Paolo Magni

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE